One has to accept a certain trade-off between risk and freedom. Driving is key example of a certain situation where we prefer free to safer outcomes.
I'm all about the freedom driving gives you, but nobody says you can't be safer and still enjoy that freedom. We have despicably low standards for driving in this country. Combine the lack of skill with all these giant vehicles that make you feel invincible, add in some bad weather and sub-par roads, and it's no surprise when you get awful weekends like this last one.
It all comes down to driver training and testing...neither of which our system excels in.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
It is a pipe dream given that it will only be possible given a massively expensive complete overhaul of global transportation infrastructure. Also, the mapping requirements are ridiculous. Highways and thoroughfares you MAY see autonomous cars, but right now, this is just another example of technologists making vast, sweeping claims with no real corollary evidence - just circumstantial prediction - that basically are designed to serve their own interests.
Look at Ray Kurzweil, for goodness sake. Are we any closer to uploading our brains into computers and becoming super cyborgs?
I'm all about the freedom driving gives you, but nobody says you can't be safer and still enjoy that freedom. We have despicably low standards for driving in this country. Combine the lack of skill with all these giant vehicles that make you feel invincible, add in some bad weather and sub-par roads, and it's no surprise when you get awful weekends like this last one.
It all comes down to driver training and testing...neither of which our system excels in.
Yeah, I was reacting to his ancillary comment about self-driving cars. People don't understand how limited, and hypothetical the technology actually is, but love to hold it up as the white knight to all of our driving concerns.
As I said, more training, more inspections, and stiffer penalties.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Yeah, I was reacting to his ancillary comment about self-driving cars. People don't understand how limited, and hypothetical the technology actually is, but love to hold it up as the white knight to all of our driving concerns.
As I said, more training, more inspections, and stiffer penalties.
I admit that I don't have in-depth knowledge about self-driving car technology, but do you have enough to call it "limited and hypothetical" or is that just your own speculation?
Nor do I hold it up as the white knight to all of our driving concerns
The penalties should definitely be harsher for at fault collisions. A girlfriend I had years ago totalled three cars, all her fault, all while turning left when she shouldn't have been. Should have lost her license or been forced to take defensive driving courses. I wouldn't get in a car with her driving.
Driving is a privilege not a right and far too many drivers these days don't realize the responsibility required when sitting behind the steering wheel. I feel strongly that at least 20% of the drivers in Calgary have no business operating a motor vehicle.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
The amount of times you can lane change without looking make a left turn without looking or speed with zero consequence to your action gives people a false sense of security. This leads to continuous risk taking behaviours and the level of risk increases with each day that is accident free.
We need to somehow prevent dangerous behaviours as opposed to punishing outcomes. It doesn't help that our laws are based on emotion instead of evidence such as the distracted driving law permitting hands free operation which provides almost no increase in safety relative to in hand operation.
I don't think training and testing could fix it. And enforcement cant really help either as most of the behaviours are probably not prosecutable without cameras. Cars are getting better though so there is hope there.
One problem I think the automation of cars will have is that people will expect them to be perfect before they are implemented. The first time one rear ends a semi and kills all of its passengers or mows down a bunch of pedestrians people will cry for a moratorium on them. Completely ignored will be the amount of crashes and live saved as a result of automation. The goal of an auto driving car isn't zero fatalities its to reduce the number of fatalities overall.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Driving is a privilege not a right and far too many drivers these days don't realize the responsibility required when sitting behind the steering wheel. I feel strongly that at least 20% of the drivers in Calgary have no business operating a motor vehicle.
I don't know about that.
You would have to compare insurance rates. I would guess that the worst 10% of drivers and the best 10% of drivers would only have rate differences of a factor of 4 or so at most.
This would suggest that randomness is as much responsible for accidents as bad drivers. With bad drivers only 4 times as likely to cause dollar losses. Is there anyone in the insurance industry that could shed light on the differences in costs between good and bad drivers?
Harsher penalties for at fault accidents? I don't know... isn't totaling your car enough of a punishment? Increased insurance and everything.... especially considering that an at-fault accident doesn't automatically mean you're a bad driver. Everyone has had close calls.
Insurance is a pretty good failsafe for keeping notoriously bad drivers off the road. If you keep getting into accidents and getting tickets, no one is going to insure you unless you have deep pockets, in which cause harsher penalties won't accomplish anything anyways.
I admit that I don't have in-depth knowledge about self-driving car technology, but do you have enough to call it "limited and hypothetical" or is that just your own speculation?
Nor do I hold it up as the white knight to all of our driving concerns
Obviously I am lazy, but here is a good summary. Financial Times is free but requires registration.
Alberta should go to mandatory re-testing every 5 years when you renew your licence.
And if you fail, you then have to take driver's ed and re-test after one or two sessions of that driver's ed.
Oh, and try to remove the corrupt driver's testing facilities that exist... (I can't believe I am saying this, but regulate and offer this as a purely government service. No privatization of it.
I am also in favour of more strict vehicle laws, but seeing as how I have a couple older cars now that might not pass, I won't say too much on that topic.
Pretty much EVERY vehicular death is preventable- and we should do our best to stop them.
__________________ REDVAN!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to REDVAN For This Useful Post:
The argument that it's hard to teach cars to drive on ice always seems funny to me. One trip down the Deerfoot on a chilly day and you won't be able to make a strong case that teaching humans to do it is any easier.
It is a pipe dream given that it will only be possible given a massively expensive complete overhaul of global transportation infrastructure. Also, the mapping requirements are ridiculous. Highways and thoroughfares you MAY see autonomous cars, but right now, this is just another example of technologists making vast, sweeping claims with no real corollary evidence - just circumstantial prediction - that basically are designed to serve their own interests.
Look at Ray Kurzweil, for goodness sake. Are we any closer to uploading our brains into computers and becoming super cyborgs?
So did horses. And cars. And planes. And the movement from rural to urban centers.
It drives me nuts when people say this stuff. "It sounds hard" is not an excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REDVAN
Alberta should go to mandatory re-testing every 5 years when you renew your licence.
This. 1000x this. I have been saying this for years. We all encounter multiple people per day who shouldn't be on the road, and this will clear them. I will happily take an hour test every 5 years so idiots can be removed from dangerous situations.
So did horses. And cars. And planes. And the movement from rural to urban centers.
It drives me nuts when people say this stuff. "It sounds hard" is not an excuse.
.
The economics of such a transfer are not insignificant, nor is the process inevitable. Instead of blindly believing in progress, one has to understand why things were the way they were, and give a good case for change.
People are so flip when they describe the massive changes of the past. The move from an agrarian rural economy to an urban industrial economy was arguably the most shocking thing that has ever happened to humanity. Ever. It still isn't over.
It amazes me that people are lackadaisical when it comes to the information age. Oh yeah, robots will take over. It will be great. No problems there. You would literally be supplanting yourself as the dominant species on the planet. Not to mention the problems that come with wealth transfer, and the subsequent socio-economic collapse that would come from basically disinheriting 99% of the world's population from ever being to contribute meaningfully to their own destiny ever again.
So yeah, it is a little more than "it sounds hard."
Last edited by peter12; 11-02-2015 at 02:41 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
The argument that it's hard to teach cars to drive on ice always seems funny to me. One trip down the Deerfoot on a chilly day and you won't be able to make a strong case that teaching humans to do it is any easier.
But most human beings can actually drive on icy roads. We know that not a single computer in the world can do it. Now, I will qualify that statement with a "yet."
That tesla video is nothing special, cars have had collision sensors and auto-braking for a few years now. Hell my car did it last week on deerfoot after people decided to lock on the brakes at 100 for no discernible reason.
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
regulate and offer this as a purely government service. No privatization of it.
